Wish: Actually the package management system should cope with it. The fundamental distribution with a given version number/revision should have higher precedence, and other repositories should have lesser precedence. Maybe the best would be that the package had a distribution list in which it can be "fundamental".

Wish: Actually the package management system should cope with it. The fundamental distribution with a given version number/revision should have higher precedence, and other repositories should have lesser precedence. Maybe the best would be that the package had a distribution list in which it can be "fundamental".

−

Maybe the package management system should consult a check post, so an installer can be informed before installation of the package on the given fundamental distribution:

+

Maybe the [[package management]] system should consult a check post (by name and some checksum), so an installer can be informed before installation of the package on the given fundamental distribution:

*Not tested

*Not tested

*Tested

*Tested

Line 23:

Line 23:

**** Only configuration

**** Only configuration

**** Data

**** Data

+

*** Conflicts with package xyz:

+

**** Resource (e.g. polling hardware, clearing special interrupts)

+

**** Offered services (e.g. using tcp-port 80)

*** Contains malware

*** Contains malware

*** Contains virus

*** Contains virus

−

*** Seems safe

+

*** Crashes sometimes

+

*** Crashes often

+

*** Vulnerable - buffer overflow...

+

*** Presently seems ok

** Feedback work level:

** Feedback work level:

*** Superficially; can start up and shut down

*** Superficially; can start up and shut down

Line 32:

Line 38:

*** most crucial features

*** most crucial features

*** all features

*** all features

−

** Designed to work with this fundamental distribution with the version number/revision:

+

** Designed to work with this fundamental distribution with the version number/revision - package maturity level:

*** Unstable

*** Unstable

*** Testing

*** Testing

*** Stable

*** Stable

** ...

** ...

+

+

===Suggest un-installation of unused packages===

+

A package management system should also suggest un-installation of unused packages.

+

+

The primary/non-dispensably packages that the user needs should have been marked - either explicitly or semi-automatically. If the user uninstall a package or a package upgrade make some packages unused, they should be suggested to be uninstalled.

[[Category:Package management| ]]

[[Category:Package management| ]]

Latest revision as of 16:08, 28 July 2009

Contents

The problem is that some packages exist in both the fundamental distribution - and other repositories - with same names, but (newer) with other dependencies, other source code includes and other compilation options, which can and often will break the installation.

So e.g. do not use "opkg upgrade" when non-distribution (e.g. non-OM2009) repositories are included. It often breaks the installation.

Wish: Actually the package management system should cope with it. The fundamental distribution with a given version number/revision should have higher precedence, and other repositories should have lesser precedence. Maybe the best would be that the package had a distribution list in which it can be "fundamental".

Maybe the package management system should consult a check post (by name and some checksum), so an installer can be informed before installation of the package on the given fundamental distribution:

Not tested

Tested

Security:

Installation damage (permanent; system can not (re)boot,...)

Non-permanent damage (uninstall recovers the installation):

Only configuration

Data

Conflicts with package xyz:

Resource (e.g. polling hardware, clearing special interrupts)

Offered services (e.g. using tcp-port 80)

Contains malware

Contains virus

Crashes sometimes

Crashes often

Vulnerable - buffer overflow...

Presently seems ok

Feedback work level:

Superficially; can start up and shut down

some crucial features

many crucial features

most crucial features

all features

Designed to work with this fundamental distribution with the version number/revision - package maturity level:

A package management system should also suggest un-installation of unused packages.

The primary/non-dispensably packages that the user needs should have been marked - either explicitly or semi-automatically. If the user uninstall a package or a package upgrade make some packages unused, they should be suggested to be uninstalled.

Views

Personal tools

Problem

The problem is that some packages exist in both the fundamental distribution - and other repositories - with same names, but (newer) with other dependencies, other source code includes and other compilation options, which can and often will break the installation.

So e.g. do not use "opkg upgrade" when non-distribution (e.g. non-OM2009) repositories are included. It often breaks the installation.

? Is this required?: opkg update # Update database with only the fundamental distribution packages?

Future package management system wish

Wish: Actually the package management system should cope with it. The fundamental distribution with a given version number/revision should have higher precedence, and other repositories should have lesser precedence. Maybe the best would be that the package had a distribution list in which it can be "fundamental".

Maybe the package management system should consult a check post, so an installer can be informed before installation of the package on the given fundamental distribution:

Not tested

Tested

Security:

Installation damage (permanent; system can not (re)boot,...)

Non-permanent damage (uninstall recovers the installation):

Only configuration

Data

Contains malware

Contains virus

Seems safe

Feedback work level:

Superficially; can start up and shut down

some crucial features

many crucial features

most crucial features

all features

Designed to work with this fundamental distribution with the version number/revision: